May 14, 2014

A controversial right-wing group known as the U.K. Independence Party (UKIP or Ukip) leads the traditionally dominant Labor and Conservative parties in polling ahead of next week's election of British representatives to the E.U.'s European Parliament.

Why aren't conservative politicians in the U.S. studying what Nigel Farage is doing right?

Notice for the umpteenth time that "controversial" no longer means "new, daring, cool, sexy" in the liberal media, it means "bad."

61 comments:

Why aren't conservative politicians in the U.S. studying what Nigel Farage is doing right?

Becase Republican pols don't give a damn about the future of the Republican Party or of their alleged constituents. They're interested in staying in office, which takes money, and they're interested in having a lucrative job after they leave office. Both things mean sucking up to people with money, and most of the notionally conservative big donors want more than anything is to crush wages in this country.

Tritely, it's even more simple: Conservatives look to the past, leftists look to the future. So Republicans are looking backwards and don't see where things are headed, and they don't care as long as they get theirs. Leftists, with that eye towards the future, are looking to build as big a voter base for elections down the road.

"Why aren't conservative politicians in the U.S. studying what Nigel Farage is doing right?"

Because everybody who counts on the US Right believes in either mass immigration or open borders. Which means that they are in complete agreement with the US Left. When the elites agree, the debate is over.

Both UKIP in Britain and the Front National in France have benefited from being seen as the second or third most extremist party at their end of the spectrum, rather than the first. UKIP has the BNP and EDL to make them look moderate and the FN in France has the street-fighting types of the Bloc Identitaire or the high drama duo of Alain Soral and Dieudonné M'bala M'bala. Having rougher and ruder people clear a path into new political territory makes it much easier for the smoother and calmer people to then follow behind them at a distance.

The "Overton window" is a new name for this political phenomena but I'm sure it's been around for as long as there's been politics. The Romans would have done this sort of thing just for kicks.

Mr Farage carefully hedges his bets though. He's not anti-immigration, he's anti EASTERN-EUROPEAN immigration. Big difference. I'm sure he privately believes in clamping down on all immigration, but he has to frame it in terms of the EU not allowing the UK to set its own migration policy, with the implication being we'd substitute immigrants from the Commonwealth in place of Poles and Bulgarians. We, so the reasoning goes, have a damn sight more in common with former British colonies than former Russian colonies. For him and his party, this is a very effective tactic - pretty much everyone in the UK is fond of the Commonwealth and wants better ties with them, and they think of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and assorted small Caribbean islands when they hear "Commonwealth", and not say, India or Nigeria. As for these poorer former colonies, there's also the sense of responsibility we feel to them, like parents to wayward children.

In short, he is in a unique position to be against European immigration, while the racist rejoinder becomes less credible by the day. Since the USA doesn't have any former direct colonies save for places like the Philippines, Farage's particular tactics won't translate well in my opinion.

"Why aren't conservative politicians in the U.S. studying what Nigel Farage is doing right?"Because the UK hasn't gone as far demographically as we have yet and a party can still win on immigration. The Repubs see that's its too late here and know they will never win again unless they can appeal to the new demographic. Also, Ukip only has about %30 of the vote, but the multiparty nature of the UK allows that to be enough when there are 4 parties. That wouldn't work here.

"Why aren't conservative politicians in the U.S. studying what Nigel Farage is doing right? "

Well, there aren't any. QED.

Certainly there are none in the Republican party.

One may choose to argue there are a few among the Tea Party insurgents, but by-and-large those get shut out from the discussion, except in those instances when they are nut-jobs, in which case they are used for ad hominem attacks on the Tea Party at large. Among the very few that have gotten through, Cruz & Paul being the two exceptions that prove the rule, neither has the moxie of Farage. Or to be charitable, they are forced to remain beholden to the established Republican party due to America's two party system. (Look no further than Paul endorsing McConnell in the KY primary.) Farage has his independence via UKIP. The Tea Party does not share that luxury.

Anon the UK arrested Paul Weston for wouting Churchills book the River War in public. So it is even more pc than here.

Rather, significant parts of UK elites are locked out of power and opportunity to serve the exploding Muslim and Black elites needing money and power. Here the nation is big enough that relatively few White elites have been tossed out of power to make way for Black and Muslim and Hispanic elites in the gravy train coalition.

For example, the Pelosi, Clinton, and Biden families do not lack for opportunities. That is not the case in the UK with fewer positions for elites and a toy military, hence no need to buy off people like the Bidens.

"A controversial right-wing group known as the U.K. Independence Party (UKIP or Ukip) leads the traditionally dominant Labor and Conservative parties in polling ahead of next week's election of British representatives to the E.U.'s European Parliament."

If UKIP is leading in the polls, then why is it they who are "controversial". Isn't it rather the case that the Tories and Labour are "controversial", given that a majority of the electorate seems not to agree with them.

1. Although it started from a much lower base the rate of white dispossession and replacement in England is much faster in percentage terms.

2. England - where most of this displacement is happening - is much smaller and more densely populated so it's much harder for the media to successfully lie about what is happening.

3. Economic conditions in the EU are heading towards revolutionary. This is happening in the states too but once again it's more concentrated in the smaller European countries and there's nowhere to run.

.

Smaller reasons

4. Having two anti-immigration parties helps for some psychological reason. If I was going to try and start something similar in the US I'd start two - one deliberately more radical than the main one.

5. Resistance to non-white immigration is as much crimethink in the UK as the US but the UK has lots of white immigration from the EU which has given people a way out.

Don't read too much from polls and results of EU elections. Nobody takes them seriously because the EU parliament is a useless debating club so non-traditional parties always do better there than they do in national elections.

It occurred to me that the entire point of the Cold War was the Communist stockade that prevented ambitious Slavs from working in the West. In the 19th century the UK was flooded with workers from there looking for work.

Now after dismantling these Police States we seek to prevent the workers from migrating?

Farage is just playing to the Borscht Belt Estonians who now run the UK.

The so called American "conservatives" are not invested in protecting the white working class in America. They adopt various policies that guarantee most folk stay home or identify themselves with the left instead.

There is nothing conservative about the GOP. It's the chamber of commerce at prayer.

Europe and immigration are why people vote UKIP. Farage criticises EU immigration because Poles are white and he can get away with it. Nobody's fooled, either his opponents or his supporters. It's all about plausible deniablity.

Also Europe has alot of Muslims and they are easy to attack, because of the shocking way they treat women and their cruelty to animals and gays. It is funny to watch the PCers tie themselves in knots. It is almost impossible to avoid accusation of sexism, anti-semitism and islamosphobia at the same time.

One was mocking the God Squad because they don't accept evolution. When I pointed out that most creationists in the UK are Muslims, she did what they always do, which is throw a content-free tantrum. You would have thought I had tried to rape her.

Another favpourite trick is to point out that Russia does not actively persecute gays while Blacks and Muslims do.

Note that he calls them controversial but gives no reason as to why. I'm sure the elite will hire a few double agents soon to join UKIP to help them develop a reputation as racist pigs.

The real danger with UKIP winning the EU elections is that it will give them more PR and give credibility to their views.

Britain has been conquered by a largely foreign elite. It may as well be a repeat of the Norman Conquest. An extremely large share of British billionaires are either immigrant or otherwise ethnically non-British.

I forget the exact formulation but there was an article in the New Criterion about whether "controversial" is an empty shibboleth or actual doublespeak. It seems to be used often both for goodthink ("controversial new movie") and for badthink ("controversial idea of man/woman marriage") so I'd say it's a totally vitiated pseudo-word now like "progress" and "discrimination."

Oh, now I get it... All these boilerplate "see you here Jimmy" gibberish comments are actually your *funny* way of obliquely referring to JEWS! It really is a wonder no working, paid, publicly performing comedians have discovered this meta-hilarious gimmick yet -- please tell me you've got a Twitter feed too???

Here's a simple-minded question from an American: if UKIP is the front-runner to be Britain's representative at the EU, does that make UKIP the likely biggest party in Parliament itself, after the next elections?

The UKIP winning the most MEP seats is not going to end well for them or their cause. It will embolden them in the 2015 General Election, and the vote splitting with the Tories will give Labour a 400 seat majority on 35% of the vote. Labour will use that majority to put in place pro-immigration and anti-"racism" policies of a breathtaking extent. No one who values his job or property will dream of dissent.

"The UKIP winning the most MEP seats is not going to end well for them or their cause. It will embolden them in the 2015 General Election, and the vote splitting with the Tories will give Labour a 400 seat majority on 35% of the vote."

Or, ya know, the Tories could actually act on immigration and separation from the EU and head off the challenge from UKIP. If it's a game of chicken, I play to win.

UKIP are consistently and almost universally misunderstood by so-called 'experts' and media pundits at home in the UK and abroad.

Simply put, UKIP are merely the backlash against the depraved New Labour government of 1997-2010 disasterous Friedmanite policy of massive, uncontrolled, unlimited immigration. This unleashed a real and alpable sense of anger and betrayal in the English people, and anger that had been brewing since the onset of third world immigration in the 1950s, reached a peak during the Powell speeches of 1968 and festered throughout the 70s. Mrs Thatcher, by controlling immigration, put a halt to this sense of anger - but the bastards of New Labour re-sowed the wind again - and now they reap the whirlwind.

What is new about the UKIP phenomenom is now, at last, a credible party and credible, charismatic leader have been able to articulate the popular feeling - something which many, myself included thought was impossible under the UK's first-past-the-post electoral system. This just shows you Mr Farage's talent, charisma and damned hard work in building a political movement - which, frankly is now the leading force in UK politics - from nothing.UKIP are an idea whose time has come. It is the culmination of a cosmic alignment of forces if you will, one of those very, very rare phenomena in which circumstances align to achieve the improbable and the galciers start to move.

"Here's a simple-minded question from an American: if UKIP is the front-runner to be Britain's representative at the EU, does that make UKIP the likely biggest party in Parliament itself, after the next elections?"No. They will get 25-30% in EU elections, and because there is proportional representation, they will get that amount of seats.

But national elections are first-past-the-post as in America, protest parties have a tough time with people not wanting to "waste their vote."

If anything more UKIP success would mean an even-more staggering victory for Labour as the ethnocentric vote is split between UKIP and Cons.

That said, long-term replacement of a mainstream party by another (Liberals used to be the main leftist party, before Labour took over), but that's rare.

I live in Paris, and the fear here among the so-called 'chattering classes' is palpable.

The local elections a few weeks ago were an outright disaster for the socialists (the current president, Francois Hollande is their banner-carrier), with the Front National actually taking several local governments.

The European elections in a couple of weeks look even worse, and the polls show the FN running neck-to-neck with the leading opposition UMP, who are not loved at all.

Just today, the local paper handed out in the Metro had a cover story about "La Menace Populiste Sur L'Europe."

I don't think you need to be particularly fluent in French to reckon what that means.

The article was a brief survey of what are here called "populist" parties across the continent (the UKIP being the leading name, but the article had many details also about the "l'Aube Doree" {Golden Dawn} in Greece, the PVV in the Netherlands, the Swedish Democrats, etc.)

The elites do not really know quite how to respond. Earlier, the then Interior Minister (Manuel Valls, who has been jumped up to be the prime minister) made a big spectacle of using the state apparatus to block the performances of the oddly-named Dieudonne, which had, I think, the opposite effect.

Another poster hit the nail to some degree on the head, at least with respect to France, at how the FN are succeeding.

They are playing up a populism for lower-middle class French who have decidedly been left behind by the regionalism and globalism. In Paris, you would hardly know that France has record levels of unemployment; at least in the fashionable quartiers where the pols and the writers for Le Monde spend their days as seigneurs des terraces. But if you go to Normandie, or the Alpes-Maritimes, or the southwest (Marseille), or even more close in the inner banlieues of Paris, it's quite another story.

The FN have to some degree scrubbed their image, and this has been helped by the rise of groups like Renoveau Francais or Francais Printemps who are much less polished.

"Another favpourite trick is to point out that Russia does not actively persecute gays while Blacks and Muslims do."

You will find gay clubs in Russia and they are not against the law, the recent law in Russia is more about the fact that the Russian leaders have identified (correctly) the dangers that having the country run by a homosexual elite (and yes America is really now run by a homosexual elite).

All the gay tantrums about Russia is because of race, because its still a white country it can be attacked, homosexual stories from Uganda and other such places don't ever get such prominence than Russia does.

The end of a majority white Britain is in sight. Thatcher owed most of her period in government to the SDLP splitting the Labour vote. UKIP can't win, but it can hand Labour another chance to 'rub the nose of the right in diversity', all they have to do is reach an accommodation with the hypercapitalist City of London types (Labour will not have to alter on immigration as business loves it). The Conservatives have a working class vote they can't win without. UKIP is going to put Labour in for the end game.

What UKIP are doing right is concentrating on cutting immigration (& on not lying to the people about it).

The Labour party spent years actively encouraging immigration "for social reasons" and lying to their voters about it. The Conservatives promised to cut it to "10s of thousands" knowing perfectly well that EU rules meant they couldn't.

UKIP are, in particular, cutting quite heavily into Labour support (despite them being socialist and us libertarian) because Labour have shown their contempt for their own supporters over immigration and other things.

To be fair this election is the EU one which isn't very important, is under a PR system, and quitting the EU is UKIP's core policy. We aren't doing as well for the normal elections - yet.

But yes it does suggest opposing immigration is the best way of getting working class people's votes (& annoying the political parasite class). Even immigrants aren't keen on more coming and making things less comfortable for them.

The tectonic plates that have governed UK politics for a century are starting to shift.The old division was class based with Labour supposedly representing working-class interests, and the Conservatives the interests of the ownership class - such has been UK politics since 1918 when Labour eclipsed the Liberals due mainly to the franchise being extended and the the very, very good grass-roots factory/trade union organisation Labour used to have.Formerly the vote was split around 40/40% between Labour and the Tories.

Now things are slowly but surely changing. The new division in UK politics is race and not class. It will come to pass that Labour's primary mission in politics is to fight for and defend non-white immigrants and their descendants, who are the rising power in the UK and will be the majority of the population by 2050 - it is a very, very rich seam of votes since they vote consistently and as a bloc - as early as 2020 the immigrant vote and the immigrant vote alone will decide all future elections in the UK, since their numbers will exceed the normal tory/labour margin. This is undeniable fact - top tory Lord Ashcroft knows this full well and has written about it. What is likely to happen is the ethnic English vote - from both workers and owners - will go to UKIP as a counter-reaction. To put it bluntly, the tories are f*cked, and will cease to matter by mid century, which, as it happens is not too far away.One must also remember that th ethnic English have had the island to themselves for around 20,000 years. Unlike the USA, there is no 'Ellis Island' bullshit there. The feeling for blood and soil is very definitely there, hidden but there. Farage's genius is to bring it out by stealth.New Labour arrogantly overplayed its hand. UKIP is merely the backlash.

Kaus pounced as any of his ilk would—he blamed Pat Buchanan! Mr. Buchanan, you see, squandered his moment(s) by espousimg extreme foreign policy views like the U.S. shouldn't be fighting Israel's wars.

Ho hum...there is populist political extremism in Europe ... again. After a history of intolerance that frequently manifested in ethnic cleansing, colonialism, genocide, and most recently, two godawful world wars, why is this a surprise?

Both Conservatives and Labour have working class supporters, Labour have more. if Ukip get the votes of working class people worried about immigration, those would necessarily be the working class people who are worried about immigration and vote accordingly.

Now working class people who are worried about immigration are currently voting whereby them voting for Ukip would be a disaster for which party? The party they already vote for is the one that gets hurt obviously. And that party can not be Labour, because it's been true for years that few of those who are concerned about excessive immigration trust Labour enough to vote for them. So Ukip can only take votes from the Conservatives by campaigning on immigration.

This is going to kill the Conservatives chances, and put in a Labour government that will not be willing or able to take the strong measures against the exodus from poor countries that Paul Collier predicts. Two generations hence there will be a non white majority England. Nothing can stop that now.

"Ho hum...there is populist political extremism in Europe ... again. After a history of intolerance that frequently manifested in ethnic cleansing, colonialism, genocide, and most recently, two godawful world wars, why is this a surprise?"

Coming right after the banking mafia crash the economy - again - why is this a surprise?

"Ho hum...there is populist political extremism in Europe ... again. After a history of intolerance that frequently manifested in ethnic cleansing, colonialism, genocide, and most recently, two godawful world wars, why is this a surprise? "

More 'recently', (3 progressively smaller generations) London has a majority of immigrants and immigrant descendants; how did that happen if the Nazism is the default political viewpoint for Europeans political views, eh?

David Cameron going to SA and announcing Nelson Mandela 'set an example to follow' illustrates the default for Europeans including "conservatives" now. Cameron brought up Nelson Mandela when speaking against Scottish independence too. Germany is abandoning nuclear power and building windmills.

Can anyone doubt where this is going to be in another 3 generations?

Whites want to believe them not being Nazis is something kind of moral achievement, like it would really pay off for them personally if they were to espouse white pride. Ha ha ha.

You conservatives have to be the easiest people in the history of the universe to lie to. Just keep voting Republican, and eventually they'll really do something about mass third-world immigration.

As long as third-world immigration drives down American wages (and standards of living), the Republicans are going to keep loving it. Guess what? Since increasing the supply of something tends to decrease its price, mass third-world immigration will keep being a key plank of Republican politics.

Sean - so, we can either have Labour win in 2015. Or we can have Labour win in 2015.

If the Daily Telegraph readership is anything to go by actual conservatives despise the current Tory party. Cameron is doomed whatever UKIP do. At least with UKIP the political centre of gravity will be shifting to the right.

If/when the UK becomes 51% non-white I and many other people will consider that all bets are off.

The WaPo here:http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/anti-immigration-party-ukip-is-shaking-up-the-political-order-in-britain/2014/05/14/af138781-8ff4-4a9d-9216-48e0895c52db_story.html

Describes the UKIP as a "far-right insurgent party" but is light on the description of exactly why it's far-right. They do quote Farage, though:

“Nobody in this country has voted for 4 million immigrants to come here in the last 15 years, and for probably another 3 million to come between now and 2020. There’s unrecognizable change happening in our country. The life prospects and job prospects, particularly of working-class people, have been severely dented.”

Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here'show to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)

My Book:

"Steve Sailer gives us the real Barack Obama, who turns out to be very, very different - and much more interesting - than the bland healer/uniter image stitched together out of whole cloth this past six years by Obama's packager, David Axelrod. Making heavy use of Obama's own writings, which he admires for their literary artistry, Sailer gives the deepest insights I have yet seen into Obama's lifelong obsession with 'race and inheritance,' and rounds off his brilliant character portrait with speculations on how Obama's personality might play out in the Presidency." - John Derbyshire Author, "Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics" Click on the image above to buy my book, a reader's guide to the new President's autobiography.